The Development of Green Ports in Emerging Nations: A Case Study of Vietnam
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I hope this letter finds you well. I appreciate the opportunity to review this work and provide constructive feedback to enhance the quality and clarity of the paper.
Overall, the manuscript presents an interesting study on the investigation of green port development in Vietnam. However, I have identified some concerns regarding the methodology section that require attention and clarification. I would like to address the following points:
Participants and Procedure: The methodology section provides a general overview of the participants and procedure involved in the study. However, it lacks specific details that would help readers better understand the research design and execution. It would be beneficial to include the following information:
a. Clarification of the sample selection process: How were the container ports in Vietnam selected for the study? Was there a specific criterion or approach used to ensure representativeness?
b. Elaboration on the survey respondents: Were the respondents chosen randomly or purposively? Were there any specific qualifications or criteria that respondents had to meet in order to participate in the study?
c. Description of the online questionnaire: What were the specific questions asked in the questionnaire? Did it include both closed-ended and open-ended questions?
d. Data collection timeframe: How long did the data collection process take? Was it conducted within a specific period, and if so, what were the reasons for selecting that timeframe?
Ethical Considerations: The manuscript does not mention any ethical considerations related to the study, such as obtaining informed consent from the participants or obtaining ethical approval from an appropriate ethics committee. It is crucial to provide information regarding ethical considerations and ensure that the study was conducted in accordance with the relevant ethical guidelines and regulations.
By addressing these concerns and providing additional details, the methodology section will become more comprehensive, allowing readers to better evaluate the study's validity and reliability.
I appreciate the authors' valuable contributions to this research and their efforts in addressing the concerns raised in this review. I recommend that the authors carefully revise the methodology section to incorporate the suggested improvements. Once these revisions have been made, I would be pleased to re-evaluate the manuscript to ensure its readiness for publication.
Thank you for considering my review. Should you require any further clarification or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the peer-review process and look forward to the revised version of this manuscript.
Some other minor comments:
1. The abstract needs to be revised to include more details about the study.
2. It is necessary to provide the full affiliation of the authors.
Yours sincerely,
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to thank the Reviewers and Editor for the careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks to the authors for their work and efforts in the advancement of knowledge in the field of environmentally and economically sustainable operations in the transport sector.
The topic is relevant as maritime transport is one of the most polluting forms of product delivery.
The authors refer to many previous studies to support this argument and use sound and reliable quantitative methods to provide new insights for developing countries through the case of Vietnam.
However, the hypotheses are obvious and the results do not reveal anything new. There is a lack of a clear definition of a green port and this paper does not address this shortcoming. The broad descriptions of the items of the dependent variable and the lack of criteria for ports to become green make any attempt to reduce pollution or protect the environment eligible for a green port label without any real long-term effectiveness.
"Zis (2019) proposed that a green port is one that [...] is attempting to become a "greener" port" - This tautology reflects the confusion about the definition and does not help respondents to measure their maturity in terms of environmental protection and sustainable operations.
The wording of the independent variables is such that most respondents are expected to have a high level of agreement with most of them when it comes to the need to attract new resources or to comply with environmental standards.
Due to the low level of novelty, a large part of the discussion section could be included in the introduction.
The English of the paper is fine. Some of the repetition of the same statements can be reduced.
Since Table 2 has the description of items they do not need to be listed again at the end of Subsection 3.2.2.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to thank the Reviewers and Editor for the careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors
Your submission entitled “The development of the green port in emerging nations: A case study of Vietnam” has been received by Sustainability. I ask you to address of these following comments:
[1] The English language needs more work. There are many grammatical and typo mistakes in this manuscript. The paper needs to be edited by a native English speaker.
[2] I suggest the authors revise the introduction of the study per the comments raised. The authors can also use the following points below as a guideline to help them come out with an interesting introduction that is more scientific. Firstly, Background & Significance, second, Problem definition, and third, Motivations & Objectives.
[3] What was the difference between the previous studies on this topic clearly motioned that in the research gap? Why this study is needed for the investigated bloc, need more clarification. Need strong justification.
[4] I would like to suggest that authors should update the introduction, literature, and results part. Specifically, the latest research trends, and in order to highlight the academic frontier of the research, the references of the recent year need to be referenced.
[5] Discussion of the results. I advise the authors to integrate a more economical/financial discussion of their results in the debate of the result. Why this research ids necessary? How can traders and policymakers use this information?
[6] In the conclusions, in addition to summarizing the actions taken and results, please strengthen the explanation of their significance. It is recommended to use quantitative reasoning comparing with appropriate benchmarks, especially those stemming from previous work. The authors should conclude the study with some implications of their basic research findings in conclusion section separately.
[7] The policy which is the engine of the study. I therefore encourage the authors to tight the policy with the findings of the study. Some policies are too short, please make these more detailed and reader friendly. Authors can elaborate how their findings can be implemented in the other regions as well as other similar blocs.
[8] What are the limitations of this research?
The English language needs more work. There are many grammatical and typo mistakes in this manuscript. The paper needs to be edited by a native English speaker.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to thank the Reviewers and Editor for the careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The green development of ports is crucial to the protection of the ecological environment and the realization of regional sustainable development. Taking the emerging country Vietnam as an example, the study analyzed the factors hindering the green development of ports through a large amount of research data, and put forward relatively complete policy suggestions. This research has implications for the green development of ports. Overall, however, the practical significance of the study outweighs the theoretical contribution.
It is suggested to increase the comparative analysis with the green ports of developed countries. The degree of greening of ports in countries at different development stages will be different. What is the difference between the green ports of emerging countries and developed countries? How to improve the modernization level of green ports in emerging countries, etc. It is suggested to increase the discussion on how to balance the relationship between environmental impact and commercial interests, and the theory should be improved.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to thank the Reviewers and Editor for the careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
hi dear.
The results are not in a systematic manner. and the recommendation is not clarify.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to thank the Reviewers and Editor for the careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
I positively welcome the submitted scientific work. You and your colleagues have prepared a comprehensive manuscript. Sustainable development problems especially in coastal and marine zones, must be reduced by real action. Technically, there are points that suggest to be corrected.
- How authors measured 3 the development of the green port by three items? By official data or questioner.
- How the participants evaluated Construct measures? by the score or qualitative methods same as Likert?
- It’s better to provide a table for descriptive statistics of Construct measures same as average, mean. Mode and etc.
- Results and conclusions should be given more clearly and in detail.
- It’s better to express the green port's impact on the decrease of environmental problems, pollution and climate change.
I recommend doing a moderate revision.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to thank the Reviewers and Editor for the careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for resubmitting your paper. I appreciate the time and effort you have invested in conducting your research and preparing the revision.
After careful consideration, I have reached a decision regarding your submission. Regrettably, I am unable to accept your paper for publication in its current form. Although I recognize the importance of investigating the development of green ports in developing countries, I believe that the current manuscript does not meet our criteria for publication for the following reasons:
While your study provides insights into the factors influencing the development of green ports, it does not significantly contribute to the existing body of knowledge in the field. The concept of green ports and their importance in addressing environmental pollution and climate change has been extensively explored in previous research.
I encourage you to revise and strengthen your manuscript to address these concerns and consider submitting it to the journal. I appreciate your understanding and thank you for considering the Sustainability journal for publication.
Best regards,
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to thank the Reviewers and Editor for the careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
We got new information on the survey, that raise new questions.
How the 248 full replies are dispersed among the 12 ports? How do the 12 ports disperse among the 3 regions? Is the variance of the item values within the ports higher than the variance between ports? In other words, do the individual responses describe the ports consistently?
The definition of green port (rows 100-104) remained vague, on my opinion. What are these requirements? Who specified those? Is it enough to fulfil a local/national regulation on pollution management or it should be in conformity with the international requirement? How can one confirm that these requirements are satisfied? Is it enough to have pollution management or it should be effective (in a confirmable way)? Can you be more specific?
How do the results justify the argument that "the most effective and targeted approach [...] is environmental legislation"? (rows 474-475) There are 3 other variables with higher (absolute) coefficients, regarding the effectiveness.
Rows 485-487: "Our findings confirm the suggestion that regulation plays a significant role in driving seaports in both developed and developing nations to meet green port sustainability criteria (Tseng & Pilcher, 2019). "
Your findings can only support the developing nations part of this statement, the other part is not studied here. Please, be more careful to distinguish your result from the others coming from the literature.
This one is just a conjecture, the authors do not provide (here) any data or reference that back this statement: " While ports in wealthy nations may find local funds to invest in equipment and technology, developing countries rely heavily on foreign funding. It appears that developing-country seaports are having more difficulty acquiring funding to modernize machinery and equipment to decrease emissions."
"On the contrary, stakeholders' (shipping firms, transportation companies) cooperation in adhering to standards and changing their actions could increase the success of the green port plan." - You cannot prove the causality or its direction here. How the "success of the green port plan" is measured?
Rows 530-542 and 551-560 should be in the Literature review (e.g., Section 2.2.5). Rows 574-591 should belong to the introduction.
These new parts diluted the Discussion and the implications.
To sum up:
This paper has a strong methodology for analysing the collected data, but it is verbose and repetitive. Some of its statements are not confirmed or backed by literature. The questionnaire is ill-designed, the definition of the green port should have the basis of the items listed under "Development of the green port". The overlap between the definition provided by the authors and the green port items is just partial.
With the new and wordy parts the English of the paper has got worsened.
In the 36th row, you start the new paragraph with "However, its effects on climate change...". What does the "its" refer back to? The noun in the previous sentence was Vietnam.
This part of the sentence does not look correct: "A green port is a sustainable development port..."
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to thank the Reviewers and Editor for the careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed my comments well. Therefore, this study can be accepted in this journal.
Minor changes
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to thank the Reviewers and Editor for the careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for addressing the comments!
Accepted!
Author Response
We would like to thank the Reviewers and Editor for the careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you again for the work made to improve your paper and satisfy the reviewers' claims.
Rejoinder to the reply (and modifications) made by the authors in the second round:
Point 1: My questions were about the exact numbers. How many responses arrived from ports of the North, Central, and South regions? You show the characterisitcs of the participants, but that has little to no significance in the remainder of your analysis. The reader did not get to know wether the responses represent well the 3 regions or the 12 selected ports. Is any of the ports under or over represented? You state that "the sample was representative" in row 290, but this statement is not backed by any data. You have 248 responses from 12 ports, that is about 20 respondents per port in average. Are there ports that has respondent number significantly different from the average?
Point 2: You have multiple responses from each port. Each region is represented by several ports (hopefully, see Point 1). Is the responses from the same port in concordance with each other? If you make groups of respondents by port or by region, will the variance within the group lower than between the groups?
My general problem that you have multiple observations (248) about just 12 subjects, and we do not know how coherent these observations.
Point 5: Your new modification made your argument more shaky. We are loosing the focus. What the vaccine research (and related intellectual property) has got to do with port machinery and emissions? Please explain it or remove this part.
Point 8: My problem was not that I missed the word "development". Perhaps, the original problem is hard to correct retrospectively. You cannot change the original question in your questionnaire now. Can you somehow match the green port definition to the items in the "Development of the green port" group?
Author Response
We would like to thank the Reviewers and Editor for the careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 4
Reviewer 2 Report
I have the feeling that my reviews were vague, or that the authors did not have enough time to think about the questions I raised and answered in a hurry.
Let me reflect on the authors' answers in round 3:
Point 1 (lines 315 - 317): The authors state "We sent 380 questions to 12 ports, with an average of 31 questions per port". Table 2 has exactly 31 items, so a single questionnaire should have 31 questions. The sentence quoted above could give the impression that only one questionnaire was sent to each port, or that each question was sent to a different person (because we have 248 respondents in Table 1).
Please clarify this. Submitting the original questionnaire (translated into English) as an appendix would clarify this. In addition, the authors could also publish the raw data on GitHub (or as an individual publication).
Point 2: Yes, the factors show the general consistency of the responses. But are all 12 ports the same, is there no significant difference anywhere? An ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis would show this.
Point 8: The authors have once again redefined the term "green port" (in lines 109-112), but I do not see a direct connection between this definition and the items in No. 7 (development of the green port) of Table 2. In the table, the authors have rephrased the items (putting "development" everywhere) in round 2 or 3 of the manuscript revision process, which is usually not recommended, unless they get a better interpretation of the original questions in the questionnaire. Again, showing the original questionnaire would help to decide this. This is an issue of construct validity. Convince the readers that the respondents have the same idea about green ports as you defined in the items and in lines 109-112.
The paper's English is generally good. It can always be improved.
Author Response
Here is the point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments.
Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
